Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another vs Surat Singh Thakur & Another on 5 October, 2015

Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan

                                        1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                         SHIMLA




                                                               .

                                LPA No. 354 of 2012
                                Decided on : 05.10.2015
      ________________________________________________





     State of Himachal Pradesh & another ......Appellants
              Versus
      Surat Singh Thakur & another        ....Respondents




                                       of
     ________________________________________________
     Coram:
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan,
                 rt                       Chauhan, Judge.
     Whether approved for reporting?

    For the Appellants :               Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr. Romesh

                                       Verma, Additional Advocate
                                       Generals with Mr. J.K. Verma,
                                       Deputy Advocate General.



      For the Respondents:             Mr. Raghunandan Chaudhary,
                                       Advocate, for respondent No.
                                       1.




                             Nemo for respondent No. 2.





     _________________________________________________
     Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral)

Subject matter of this Letters Patent Appeal is the judgment dated 10th March, 2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP (T (T) No. 10931 of 2008, 2008 titled Surat Surat Singh Thakur versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby the writ petition came to be ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:02:26 :::HCHP 2 partly allowed, hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned .

judgment'.

2. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General, stated at the Bar that the writ petitioner has not questioned the orders, whereby he of was given the charge of the higher post of Fire Prevention Officer for the period mentioned in paras-2 rt and 7 of the impugned judgment with the rider, but has claimed the salary and other benefits.

3. We have examined the pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgment.

4. We are of the considered view that the writ petitioner was in position and discharging his duties of the higher post of Fire Prevention Officer right from 21st February, 1995 till 31st January, 2001, but was not given the basic pay, to which he was entitled to, as per the rules occupying the field, constraining him to file the writ petition.

5. The learned Single Judge has discussed the .

ratio laid down by the apex Court in Secretary-

Secretary-cum-

cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh versus Hari Om Sharma and others, (1998) 5 SCC 87, 87 in para-6 of the impugned judgment, rightly applied.

of

6. Having said so, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment is well reasoned, needs no rt interference and merits to be upheld.

7. Viewed thus, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

(Mansoor Ahmad Mir), Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Chauhan) Judge October 5, 5, 2015 (hemlata) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:02:26 :::HCHP